Redesigning Distribution_Ackerman.qxd 8/3/2005 17:50 Page 7 1 Basic Income: A simple and powerful idea for the twenty-first century* Philippe Van Parijs Give all citizens a modest, yet unconditional income, and let them top it up at will with income from other sources. This exceedingly simple idea has a surprisingly diverse pedigree. In the course of the last two centuries, it has been independently thought up under a variety of names – “territorial dividend” and “state bonus,” for example, “demogrant” and “citizen’s wage,” “universal benefit” and “basic income” – in most cases without much success. In the late sixties and early seventies, it enjoyed a sudden popularity in the United States and was even put forward by a presidential candi- date, but it was soon shelved and just about forgotten. In the last two decades, however, it has gradually become the subject of an unprece- dented and fast expanding public discussion throughout the European Union. Some see it as a crucial remedy for many social ills, including unemployment and poverty. Others denounce it as a crazy, economi- cally flawed, ethically objectionable proposal, to be forgotten as soon as possible, to be dumped once and for all into the dustbin of the history of ideas. To shed light on this debate, I start off saying more about what basic income is and what it is not, and about what distinguishes it from existing guaranteed income schemes. On this background, it * The first version of this paper was prepared for the international seminar “Policies and instruments to fight poverty in the European Union: A guaranteed minimum income” organized under the aegis of the Portuguese presidency of the European Union (Almancil, Portugal, February 2000). Later versions served as background papers for the VIIIth Congress of the Basic Income European Network (Berlin, Germany, October 2000) and, jointly with a paper by Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott, for the workshop “Rethinking Redistribution” (Madison, Wisconsin, May 2002). 7 Redesigning Distribution_Ackerman.qxd 8/3/2005 17:50 Page 8 8 REDESIGNING DISTRIBUTION will be easier to understand why basic income has recently been attracting so much attention, why resistance can be expected to be tough and how it will eventually be overcome. It is the author’s firm conviction that basic income will not be forgotten, and that it must not be dumped. Basic income is one of those few simple ideas that must and will powerfully shape, first the debate, and next the reality, of the new century. 1. WHAT BASIC INCOME IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT A basic income is an income paid by a political community to all its members on an individual basis, without means test or work require- ment. This is the definition I shall adopt. It does not fit all actual uses of the English expression “basic income”, or of its most common translations into other European languages, such as “Bürgergeld,” “allocation universelle,” “renta básica,” “reddito di cittadinanza,” “basisinkomen,” or “borgerlon.” Some of these actual uses are broader: they also cover, for example, benefits whose level is affected by one’s household situation or which are administered in the form of tax credits. Other uses are narrower: They also require, for example, that the level of the basic income should match what is required to satisfy basic needs or that it should replace all other transfers. The aim of the above definition is not to police usage but to clarify argu- ments. Let us briefly focus on each of its components in turn. (i) An income Paid in cash, rather than in kind. One can conceive of a benefit that would have all other features of a basic income but be provided in kind, for example in the form of a standardized bundle of food, or the use of a plot of land. Or it could be provided in the form of a special currency with restricted uses, for example food stamps or housing grants, or more broadly consumption in the current period only without any possibility of saving it, as in Jacques Duboin’s (1945) “distributive economy.”A basic income, instead, is provided in cash, without any restriction as to the nature or timing of the consumption or investment it helps fund. In most variants, it supplements, rather than substitutes, existing in-kind transfers such as free education or basic health insurance. Paid on a regular basis, rather than as a one-off endowment. A basic income consists in purchasing power provided at regular intervals, Redesigning Distribution_Ackerman.qxd 8/3/2005 17:50 Page 9 PHILLIPE VAN PARIJS 9 such as a week, a month, a term or a year, depending on the proposal. One can also conceive of a benefit that would have all other features of a basic income but be provided on a one-off basis, for example at the beginning of adult life. This has occasionally been proposed (see Cunliffe & Erreygers 2003), for example long ago by Thomas Paine (1796) and far more recently by Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott (1999). There is a significant difference between a regular basic income and such a basic endowment. Yet, it should not be overstated. Firstly, the basic endowment can be invested to generate an actuarially equivalent annual or monthly income up to the recipient’s death, which would amount to a regular basic income. If left to the insur- ance market, the level of this annuity would be negatively affected by the length of a person’s life expectancy. Women, for example, would receive a lower annuity than men. However, the advocates of a basic endowment (including Paine and Ackerman and Alstott) usually sup- plement it with a uniform basic pension from a certain age, which erases most of this difference. Secondly, while other uses can be made of a basic endowment than turning it into an annuity, the resulting difference with a basic income would be essentially annulled if the latter’s recipients could freely borrow against their future basic income stream. Even if one wisely protects basic income against seizure by creditors, the security it provides will make it easier for its beneficiaries to take loans at every stage and will thereby reduce the gap between the ranges of options opened, respectively, by a one-off basic endowment and a regular basic income. (ii) Paid by a political community By definition, a basic income is paid by a government of some sort out of publicly controlled resources. But it need not be paid by a Nation-state. Nor does it need to be paid out of redistributive taxation. The Nation-state, beneath and beyond. In most proposals, the basic income is supposed to be paid, and therefore funded, at the level of a Nation-state, as sometimes indicated by the very choice of such labels as “state bonus,” “national dividend” or “citizen’s wage.” However, it can in principle also be paid and funded at the level of a politically organized part of a Nation-state, such as a province or a commune. Indeed, the only political unit which has ever introduced a genuine basic income, as defined, is the state of Alaska in the United States (see e.g. Palmer 1997). A basic income can also conceivably be paid by Redesigning Distribution_Ackerman.qxd 8/3/2005 17:50 Page 10 10 REDESIGNING DISTRIBUTION a supra-national political unit. Several proposals have been made at the level of the European Union (see Genet and Van Parijs 1992, Ferry 2000, Van Parijs and Vanderborght 2001) and some also, more specu- latively, at the level of the United Nations (see e.g. Kooistra 1994, Barrez 1999, Frankman 2001). Redistribution. The basic income may, but need not, be funded in a specific, ear-marked way. If it is not, it is simply funded along with all other government expenditures out of a common pool of revenues from a variety of sources. Among those who advocated ear-marked funding, most are thinking of a specific tax. Some want it funded out of a land tax or a tax on natural resources (from Thomas Paine (1796) and Joseph Charlier (1848) to Raymond Crotty (1987), Marc Davidson (1995) or James Robertson (1999) for example). Others prefer a specific levy on a very broadly defined income base (for example, Pelzer 1998, 1999) or a massively expanded value-added tax (for example, Duchatelet 1992, 1998). And some of those who are thinking of a worldwide basic income stress the potential of new tax instruments such as “Tobin taxes” on speculative capital movements (see Bresson 1999) or “bit taxes” on transfers of information (see Soete & Kamp 1996). Distribution. Redistributive taxation, however, need not be the only source of funding. Alaska’s dividend scheme (O’Brien & Olson 1990, Palmer 1997) is funded out of part of the return on a diversified investment fund which the state built up using the royalties on Alaska’s vast oil fields. In the same vein, James Meade’s (1989, 1993, 1994, 1995) blueprint of a fair and efficient economy comprises a social dividend funded out of the return on publicly owned productive assets. Finally, there has been a whole sequence of proposals to fund a basic income out of money creation, from Major Douglas’s Social Credit movement (see Van Trier 1997) and Jacques and Marie-Louise Duboin’s (1945, 1985) Mouvement français pour l’abondance to the more sophisticated (and more modest) proposals of Joseph Huber (1998, 1999, 2000 with J. Robertson). (iii) To all its members Non-citizens? There can be more or less inclusive conceptions of the membership of a political community. Some, especially among those who prefer the label “citizen’s income,” conceive of membership as restricted to nationals, or citizens in a legal sense.